“Check processing,” as that term is used herein, refers to the process of receiving a check at a first bank (a bank of first deposit, or “BOFD”) to be deposited into a first account at that bank (or cashed at that bank), and that is drawn on a second account at a second bank. When received, the BOFD returns the check to the second bank on which it is drawn and requests payment for the check. The second bank then deducts the check amount for the second account, and transfers that amount of money to the BOFD. The BOFD then credits the first account with that amount of money.
A “check” or “checks” as that term is used herein refers to financial documents indicating and authorization to transfer funds from one financial institution or business to another financial institution or business, and includes but is not limited to such things as consumer checks, business checks, traveler's checks, U.S. Treasury checks, money orders, and legal copies of checks such as IRDs or substitute checks.
This process is well known in the art, and has been in use in one form or another for hundreds of years. Until quite recently, the process involved the BOFD actually transmitting the original paper check back to the second bank for examination at the second bank, and waiting a substantial period of time (days, and sometimes weeks) for the second bank to respond either by rejecting the check, or by honoring it and sending the check amount. Over time, the process has become gradually more and more automated with the advent of high speed check processing machines, computer-readable check numbers, and even more recently, computer handwriting recognition.
One of the final bottlenecks and costs to the entire process has been the legal requirement that the check—the actual physical paper document—be returned to the person who originally wrote it. Instead of checks being one-way documents, going from the executor to the recipient, checks have been two-way documents, to be physically tracked, returned and collated by the second bank for return to the executor. This process of gathering and compiling every check across America and placing them in envelopes for return shipment to the executor with his bank statement every month has been quite expensive. Even the cost of returning them from the BOFD to the second bank, let alone gathering them at the second bank for return to the executor, is quite expensive.
For that reason, the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, commonly referred to as “Check 21,” was enacted in the United States. Signed into law on Oct. 28, 2003, and effective one year later, the new law facilitates the cost efficiencies of check truncation by encouraging image based processing and truncation. Check 21 reduces the unnecessary transfer of checks, and the concomitant cost, by enabling the scanning the checks at the BOFD and performing the remaining processing with an electronic record of the check, which includes an electronic image of the check and an electronic record of the check data (including, but not limited to, the account number, the bank routing number, and the amount of the check). Check 21 is a federal law that supersedes state law, and applies to all types of checks, including, but not limited to, consumer, business, traveler's and U.S. Treasury checks.
It is important to note that Check 21 does not mandate truncation, it merely enables it by mandating that a financial institution accept substitute checks, treat substitute checks as legal equivalents of an original paper check, provide informational notices to consumers, and adopt new expedited re-credit procedures for substitute checks. Check 21 creates a new legal instrument called a “substitute check,” which allows financial institutions to truncate the original paper check to process the check information electronically and to deliver substitute checks to financial institutions that want to continue receiving paper checks. Under the Act, a financial institution no longer can demand the original paper check, but instead must accept a substitute check. Because substitute checks can be processed just like original paper checks, a financial institution would not need to invest in new technology or otherwise change its current check processing operations.
“Truncation” is defined as the removal of an original paper check from the collection process. The check information is captured electronically in a data file and the original paper check is destroyed. When a check is truncated, the recipient does not receive their original paper check back.
A “substitute check” is a copy of an original paper check that has all the legal attributes of the original paper check. A substitute check must contain an image of the front and back of the original paper check, bear all the information appearing on the MICR line of the original paper check, conform in material (e.g. paper) stock and dimension, be suitable for automated processing, and contain the words: “This is a legal copy of your check. You can use it the same way you would use the original check.” Typically, a substitute check is approximately 3.75″×8.5″ in size, contains a leading “4” in the MICR line, and includes an image of the original paper check (front and back) with additional endorsements such as the reconverting bank, bank of first deposit and truncating bank routing numbers and a legal legend. “MICR” refers to the line of numbers near the bottom of a check, which may include the bank routing number, the customer account number, the check number, the amount, and other information, printed in magnetic ink so that the information can be read electronically.
IRD is an acronym for “Image Replacement Document,” and is the industry vernacular for “substitute check.” “IRD” and “substitute check” are used interchangeably in the industry.
A “reconverting bank” is defined as the financial institution that created the substitute check or the first financial institution that transfers or presents the substitute check for payment.
Check 21 is not the same as image exchange. “Image exchange” is defined as the presenting, receiving and settling of checks between financial institutions by electronically exchanging images and MICR line data of an original paper check. Check 21 is a law that legally establishes “image exchange” as a legally valid check collection process, whereas “image exchange” is the check collection process itself.
By authorizing image exchange, Check 21 promotes and provides numerous advantages in check processing. It accelerates settlement, reduces the volume of physical checks, reduces the number of times a physical check is handled, facilitates rapid discovery of fraud, allows for earlier or multiple transmissions, eliminates resubmits, lowers clearing fees, reduces check floating, improves collections, promotes electronic processing of share draft returns, accelerates receipt and processing of check collection returns, accelerates receipt and processing of check collection returns, enables a potential increase in return check service fee income, reduces the time and expense spent in research and adjustment, reduces transportation and infrastructure costs (e.g., hardware, maintenance, supplies, and labor), reduces check storage expenses, and reduces sorting time due to fewer checks and passes.
Prior to Check 21 and image exchange, financial institutions (such as the BOFD described above) processing transit checks (i.e., checks drawn on another institution) specifically captured, processed and verified only (1) the routing transit number (i.e., the number that uniquely identifies the second bank or institution the check was drawn on), and (2) the dollar amount. This capturing, processing and verifying was and is done by high speed check processing machines.
In some cases, the BOFD also would scan and record other information, such as the account number MICR data. This is unnecessary from a processing point of view, however, since the BOFD merely needs the amount of the check and the identity of the bank on which it was drawn in order to send a request for the amount of money to the second bank. In the latter instance, the second bank would extract and decipher the remaining information on the check. Thus, the second bank would rescan the check to determine who the actual account holder was and using that information, debit the second account for the amount of the check accordingly.
With image exchange, since the original paper checks are disposed of by the BOFD upon receipt and initial scanning under the new system (i.e., the checks are “truncated”), there would be no check to be forwarded to the second bank to be electronically scanned a second time to determine the number of the second account and debit that account accordingly. This scenario potentially presented a tremendous increase in un-posted checks, and/or additional check keying requirements on the part of the financial institution receiving images. No longer could a high speed machine read MICR data printed on checks at the second bank. Unless other arrangements were made by Check 21, individuals at the second bank would need to view the substitute check images on computer screens and manually type in the second account number. In addition to increasing labor costs by requiring additional employees at the second bank, this situation would also have further complicated the goal of detecting, analyzing, and eliminating any possible double posting of check images.
To deal with this problem, Check 21 changed the legal obligations placed on each bank when processing checks. Under Check 21, the bank receiving the check (i.e., the BOFD) must scan the check and extract all the useful information from the check, including the MICR account number on the check before sending the complete record of check data together with the image to the second bank. Thus, tasks previously handled by the second bank which actually had the second account on which the check was drawn (and, presumably, the closest relationship with the account holder) would now be handled by the BOFD.
Accordingly, standards were needed to require all characters of the MICR information be scanned and saved at the BOFD, including serial and account number fields, and mandate that the check's image and full MICR information be transmitted to the second bank. At the present time, the standards most likely to be adopted by image exchange networks include ANSI X9.37 for Electronic Cash Letters, ANSI X9.90 for Image Replacement Documents, and ANSI X9.81 for Future Bulk Image and Data Exchange.
Under the present implementation of the image exchange process, if any of the MICR information on the check is not readable or invalid, the BOFD rejects the check and manually corrects the data to the extent possible. However, if, after completing these manual corrections, some of the MICR data still cannot be determined, the check is not eligible to participate in the image exchange process and the physical check is sent to the other bank or institution it is drawn on in the traditional manner.
Accordingly, what is needed is a method that allows a BOFD to truncate a check and transmit the check's image and MICR data to a second bank, even if all of the check's MICR data cannot be determined and thus would not normally be eligible to participate in the image exchange process.